So Donald Fehr will be directly involved in his second forced cancellation of a league's championship and Gary Bettman will be directly involved in his second self-imposed cancellation of a league's entire season.

You know what? Those two assholes deserve to be tied together in history.

/I no longer believe that it's the entirety of NHL ownership pulling Bettman's strings.//It's a minority of them or Bettman himself leading them over a cliff/But Fehr's farked this up quite a bit too

Munchausen's Proxy:I'm not up on labor law, but doesn't the decertification only make a lockout illegal? What does it do to individual player contracts? Are they tied to the existence of a CBO?

If you believe what the league says, it would void all existing contracts. They might just say "hey, the union is no more? OK, all contracts are void now and the lockout is over! Here's your new cap, set at $25 and it stays this way for the next 20 years!"

desertgeek:So Donald Fehr will be directly involved in his second forced cancellation of a league's championship and Gary Bettman will be directly involved in his second self-imposed cancellation of a league's entire season.

You know what? Those two assholes deserve to be tied together in history.

/I no longer believe that it's the entirety of NHL ownership pulling Bettman's strings.//It's a minority of them or Bettman himself leading them over a cliff/But Fehr's farked this up quite a bit too

Are there any specifics to what Fehr's "farked up"? Or is this just one of those "FEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHRRRR" posts.

The new Jets and the old Jets. Plus Columbus and probably 3-5 more teams. I wouldn't rule out either Alberta team, either Florida team, Nashville, Carolina, Dallas, Anaheim, Colorado, St. Louis or San Jose even.

The new Jets and the old Jets. Plus Columbus and probably 3-5 more teams. I wouldn't rule out either Alberta team, either Florida team, Nashville, Carolina, Dallas, Anaheim, Colorado, St. Louis or San Jose even.

The new Jets and the old Jets. Plus Columbus and probably 3-5 more teams. I wouldn't rule out either Alberta team, either Florida team, Nashville, Carolina, Dallas, Anaheim, Colorado, St. Louis or San Jose even.

Good. The NHL needs to have 25 teams at most.

At the rate hockey is going, we may go from "The Original Six" to "The Last Six Remaining".

There's got to be a point where the owners realize that killing their sport might effect their pocketbooks more than a bad contract.

By the way, I haven't been following this dispute too much since it started (other than knowing there simply isn't hockey on at all), but what are the major sticking points in the negotiations? Anybody care to give me a quick summary?

desertgeek:Munchausen's Proxy: I'm not up on labor law, but doesn't the decertification only make a lockout illegal? What does it do to individual player contracts? Are they tied to the existence of a CBO?

If you believe what the league says, it would void all existing contracts. They might just say "hey, the union is no more? OK, all contracts are void now and the lockout is over! Here's your new cap, set at $25 and it stays this way for the next 20 years!"

I wouldn't put it past them to do just that.

/and the omission of "million" was intentional

That is what I thought might be the case. It doesn't really work out for the players much, does it.

Is this a case of the players seeing players in other sports raking in big $$ and wanting to match, or owners seeing owners in other sports raking in big$$$ and wanting to match? Or both?

You know, it may just be me, but despite my sympathy for the players, this whole 'decertify then sue for unfair lockout' thing seems like gamesmanship at its worst. It is a blatant abuse of the laws, despite my contempt for the owners' position. Stupid people, get back to the table and get hockey back!

Just to head off any additional FEHHHHHHHHHHHHHHR posts, let me remind everyone that since the 1994 strike, the MLBPA is the strongest players union in the world and MLB hasn't had even the slightest hint of a labor dispute with them since.

Dafatone:desertgeek: So Donald Fehr will be directly involved in his second forced cancellation of a league's championship and Gary Bettman will be directly involved in his second self-imposed cancellation of a league's entire season.

You know what? Those two assholes deserve to be tied together in history.

/I no longer believe that it's the entirety of NHL ownership pulling Bettman's strings.//It's a minority of them or Bettman himself leading them over a cliff/But Fehr's farked this up quite a bit too

Are there any specifics to what Fehr's "farked up"? Or is this just one of those "FEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHRRRR" posts.

I think Fehr underestimated how far the league was willing to go here. I don't think Fehr was fully prepared to deal with people who were willing to kill their business just to make a point.

The Bestest:Just to head off any additional FEHHHHHHHHHHHHHHR posts, let me remind everyone that since the 1994 strike, the MLBPA is the strongest players union in the world and MLB hasn't had even the slightest hint of a labor dispute with them since.

Bolded part not entirely accurate. They nearly went into a lockout in 2002 or 2003, but were able to get deal done just hours before games were lost. Unfortunately, I can't find a strong enough citation to link to and back that up.

The new Jets and the old Jets. Plus Columbus and probably 3-5 more teams. I wouldn't rule out either Alberta team, either Florida team, Nashville, Carolina, Dallas, Anaheim, Colorado, St. Louis or San Jose even.

I was gonna say "one of these things is not like the other", but it's actually two, after bothering to look it up.

If you want to sort by "percentage of capacity utilized", Montreal is the #8 team in the league. By average home attendance, they're #2. By the same metric, St. Louis is #9. I'm surprised by how far down the list Colorado is, I thought they were passionate about their team out there.

Any of the others I can't argue with - in order, the bottom of the "total attendance %" list is: Florida, Colorado, Anaheim, Islanders, Columbus, Dallas, Phoenix- pretty spot on.

Support for hockey in St. Louis is deeper than most realize. The Blues at one point had the longest "in the postseason" streak of any professional sports organization in the country. (World? Not sure.)

Munchausen's Proxy:I'm not up on labor law, but doesn't the decertification only make a lockout illegal? What does it do to individual player contracts? Are they tied to the existence of a CBO?

I don't know *Canadian* labor law, but in the United States, a collective bargaining agreement can cover areas that would normally violate antitrust laws (salary caps, most notably). So if a league and the union negotiate to an impasse, and the league imposes it's last offer before declaring an impasse (which is how labor law works), and that offer includes a salary cap, the union then decertifies and the individual players sue the league for violating antitrust laws, and if they win get triple damages.

desertgeek:Munchausen's Proxy: I'm not up on labor law, but doesn't the decertification only make a lockout illegal? What does it do to individual player contracts? Are they tied to the existence of a CBO?

If you believe what the league says, it would void all existing contracts. They might just say "hey, the union is no more? OK, all contracts are void now and the lockout is over! Here's your new cap, set at $25 and it stays this way for the next 20 years!"

I wouldn't put it past them to do just that.

/and the omission of "million" was intentional

Then they will find what soccer has known for decades: players will chase the money to the ends of the earth. If they are offering less than the KHL offers, players will go to the KHL. Players will happily plant their flag in shiatty leagues on the other side of the globe if the shiatty league pays more.

Munchausen's Proxy:Is this a case of the players seeing players in other sports raking in big $$ and wanting to match, or owners seeing owners in other sports raking in big$$$ and wanting to match? Or both?

It's more of a case of half the owners are making money, half aren't.

The reality is the NHL can't support a 32 team league right now, at least not with each team standing on their own financially. The bottom half of owners know they either need major revenue sharing between teams, or a substantial increase in the split between owners and players to stay in business.The player don't want to take that big of hit in salary cap and contract options, and the owners who are making money don't want to ship that much of their income to other teams.

The long term answer is to contract / demote to AAA, about 8 teams, but I don't think they will get that desperate this go-round.

The new Jets and the old Jets. Plus Columbus and probably 3-5 more teams. I wouldn't rule out either Alberta team, either Florida team, Nashville, Carolina, Dallas, Anaheim, Colorado, St. Louis or San Jose even.

Good. The NHL needs to have 25 teams at most.

At the rate hockey is going, we may go from "The Original Six" to "The Last Six Remaining".

There's got to be a point where the owners realize that killing their sport might effect their pocketbooks more than a bad contract.

By the way, I haven't been following this dispute too much since it started (other than knowing there simply isn't hockey on at all), but what are the major sticking points in the negotiations? Anybody care to give me a quick summary?

They're arguing over the length of the deal (players want the next lockout in 5 years, the owners 10.). Also, contract duration limits.

That's what the season is going to be cancelled over. That's what both sides are willing to lose millions more dollars (on top of the millions already thrown away) fighting for.

Teetotaler:How? The new Jets are owned by Thomson who is the richest man in Canada. The NY Jets are more likely to go bankrupt.

You're aware that one has nothing to do with the other, right? Unless the richest guy in Canada is happy with hemorrhaging money just because he really likes hockey that much. Usually rich people didn't get rich by being stupid and wasteful with their money.

BMFPitt:They're arguing over the length of the deal (players want the next lockout in 5 years, the owners 10.). Also, contract duration limits.

Which the owners' side make much more sense than the players' side does on those two points. There are other issues, though, but I'd agree those are the biggest ones.

The new Jets and the old Jets. Plus Columbus and probably 3-5 more teams. I wouldn't rule out either Alberta team, either Florida team, Nashville, Carolina, Dallas, Anaheim, Colorado, St. Louis or San Jose even.

Good. The NHL needs to have 25 teams at most.

At the rate hockey is going, we may go from "The Original Six" to "The Last Six Remaining".

There's got to be a point where the owners realize that killing their sport might effect their pocketbooks more than a bad contract.

By the way, I haven't been following this dispute too much since it started (other than knowing there simply isn't hockey on at all), but what are the major sticking points in the negotiations? Anybody care to give me a quick summary?

They're arguing over the length of the deal (players want the next lockout in 5 years, the owners 10.). Also, contract duration limits.

That's what the season is going to be cancelled over. That's what both sides are willing to lose millions more dollars (on top of the millions already thrown away) fighting for.

Also, revenue splits. In the previous CBA, players got 57% of the revenue. The league wanted this down to (I think) 47%. In mid-October, the league offered a 50-50 split and said if the players wouldn't take it then, that was it and they'd never get that offer again. The players rejected it since some other concerns weren't addressed, and we haven't been close to a resolution since.